Elephants or Dinosaurs?

Abstract

In this special section of the Kappan, 14 scholars and practitioners have taken a fresh look at the education of principals, superintendents, and other educational leaders, with a special focus on redesigning leadership programs at universities. These articles offer an exciting array of ideas for reforming leadership education as Ed Schools feel the pinch of recent critiques and new competitors. New ideas clearly matter, but will they be enough of a catalyst for change? Are Ed Schools open to fresh thinking? And do their denizens feel the sense of urgency typically required to propel organizational change? Frankly, I am not sanguine about widespread reform. I don't believe that the external pressure for change is sufficiently intense to force action, particularly in universities where the introduction of rigorous programs would mean fewer students and less money. These disincentives - combined with the absence of a public outcry for stronger leaders and of powerful constituencies pressing for quality--suggest that most Ed Schools will sit out the dance. They have done so before. Ed Schools resemble elephants--slow stepping and hard to budge. In the absence of overwhelming external pressure, is it possible to get these elephants to dance in new ways? (1) What will it take to rouse them to action? What might their new steps look like? What's at stake? I address these questions below and present a more optimistic viewpoint about the possibility of at least some Ed Schools instituting significant change. Even though the current ferment might not be enough to force action, I argue that an opportunity exists for forward-looking Ed Schools to overhaul their offerings and, more important, to address their declining influence. I suggest new ways to dance by offering a template for a leadership program that synthesizes some of the best thinking to be found in this special section and elsewhere. I certainly do not intend to present the way to prepare leaders--context always matters, and different programs are required for different stages in leaders' careers. I also recognize that some of the ideas presented here are controversial; they may fit some universities but be ill suited for others. I present a possible model in order to stimulate debate and encourage action, especially in those research-oriented universities that are inclined to self-examination and reform. Finally, I contend that substantial reform depends heavily on the organizational capacity of Ed Schools to learn their way to reform and, most of all, on their exercising leadership to make it all happen. WHAT'S AT STAKE? In my view, the current ferment in leadership education is symptomatic of a deeper and bigger problem that deserves serious attention: namely, the declining influence of many Ed Schools. they don't seize the moment, they risk becoming marginalized and irrelevant. Indeed, if these slow-stepping elephants fail to dance in new ways, they may just morph into dinosaurs. The decline in the influence of Ed Schools has its roots in three enduring difficulties that have recently become more troublesome. First, Ed Schools have long been burdened by low status within the academy,2 but things have gotten worse lately. As school reform continues to sputter and as frustration grows, Ed Schools are increasingly blamed for not making much of a dent. Fairly or not, critics now regularly ask, If Ed Schools are so good, why are the public schools so bad? Second, Ed Schools are very much isolated within the universities. Going it alone worked fine when public education was a back-burner issue, but school reform has become a hot topic on campus today, and faculty members across the university are engaged in the debate. Ignorant of the good work of many Ed Schools, it is easy for newcomers to blame them for the unsolved problems facing so many public schools. Lacking bonds of colleagueship, it's easy for collaborations that pursue new interdisciplinary approaches to fail. …